NO, I DON’T WANT TO…

please consider apologizing to the entire Open Source Community for what your CEO thinks. before even considering asking form My participation. I am Open Source. WE ARE ALL OPEN SOURCE. And don’t get me wrong, there is something in me that wants to believe you initiative but YEARS of bad OS experiences and the previous reference of your CEO makes me say…

Rate this:

Like this:

Related

14 Replies to “NO, I DON’T WANT TO…”

That was 6 years ago. 6 years ago in IT industry is like 2 centuries in any other. Things change, and even companies change. Today they are submitting rather good licenses to OSI for approval and actually releasing pieces of open source software.

Did you know that psychologists generally see strong dichotomic thinking as a sign of mental disorders?

Efrain, just because its Microsoft doesn’t mean they can’t be part of Open Source. Of course everyone can be part of it as long as they play by the rules. Open Source is a a possible business strategy for MS because it is the current most effective way of developing and delivering software. Why not bark at Apple as well?

Open Source is pretty broad topic and MS will most likely avoid stuff that is pretty much associated to the GPL and probably willing to go Eclipse or Apache or even build their own that conforms to OSI.

Shutting out even MS is not only un-open source, but pretty much makes the practice a witch hunt.

Notice how I didn’t insult them … or disrespect them in anyway. 6 years ago is still today in their OS (some people still run Win XP and prefer it to windows vista, how crazy is that?). I won’t trust them. this is what happens when you trust them

“Q. What is the Microsoft position on intellectual property (IP) and open source?

Intellectual property (IP) serves a vital role in maintaining a healthy cycle of innovation in the IT industry. IP concepts—including copyright, trademark, patent, or public domain—are useful for developers to define terms of use that enable their project or business to thrive, regardless of what development model they choose.”

Notice how the closest they can get to open source is “public domain”? But fair is fair. Copyright — copyleft — can be useful. Like swords can be useful. Its not a plough, but it works fine against swords. GPL and BSD licences serve the same purpose.

As to (intellectual) property et cetera: They are artefacts from a time when men sold and bought physical things. You know, the things one could actually call “property”, stamp a trademark on and desperately protect with patents.

Nowadays many things on the market are not “things”. A simple but very important difference. (IT) businesses hold out their patent portfolio’s like the barons their land leases and the guilds their patents. Pathetically clueless to the changes around them.

You are free to do as you want effiejayx, but I would suggest shrugging your shoulders at their desperate efforts to be “in”. They’re already out of time…

I see your point of view… all is necesary. My post did not mean… Let’s get rid of all propietary software… I just said no to a proposal of particiation in an “Open Source” proyect offered by Microsoft. I say NO… for me… you can do what you please. and as I contribute more to the Open Source I find out… there is no such thing as being “IN”. as long as you are useful and participative. it’s all about Sharing… which sometimes is hard for some people to understand…